THE EARTHQUAKE CLAUSE.
The answer of the defendant, filed in the United States Circuit court in the suit of Thomas I. Bcrgin against the Commercial Union Assurance company, Limited, of London, the earthquake clause in the San Francisco policies is fully explained front the viewpoint of the insurance people. The suit was brought to recover $6,500 on the policy of insurance on the building on California street near Sansonte, which was destroyed in the conflagration following the earthquake. The answer sets forth that, if it had not been for the earthquake, Bergin’s building would not have burned. It is recited, also, that the shocks of April 18 prostrated numerous buildings and partly knocked down others; that the electric light and power wires were broken by the shocks and set fire to woodwork and other inflammable substances, that several such original fires caused by earthquakes spread until fire reached plaintiff’s house. Tt is alleged further that San Francisco at that time possessed an efficient fire department and adequate supply of water; but that the earthquake broke mains and pipes, rendering the fire department useless and causing original fires to spread to the house of the plaintiff,-, which would not have been burned if it bad not been for the earthquake. The defendants deny, therefore, that they are liable for any losses, and that the earthquake clause in the policy shields them,